Tiny Nebraska Town Says No to 1,100 Jobs, Citing Way of Life

tod evans

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
36,071
Tip of my hat to the locals..........


From Drudge;

Tiny Nebraska Town Says No to 1,100 Jobs, Citing Way of Life

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tiny-nebraska-town-1100-jobs-citing-life-38807185

Half-ton pickup trucks crowd the curb outside the One Horse Saloon, a neon Coors Light sign in the window and rib-eye steaks on the menu, but otherwise Nickerson, Nebraska, is nearly silent on a spring evening, with only rumbling freight trains interrupting bird songs.

Regional economic development officials thought it was the perfect spot for a chicken processing plant that would liven up the 400-person town with 1,100 jobs, more than it had ever seen. When plans leaked out, though, there was no celebration, only furious opposition that culminated in residents packing the fire hall to complain the roads couldn't handle the truck traffic, the stench from the plant would be unbearable and immigrants and out-of-towners would flood the area, overwhelming schools and changing the town's character.

"Everyone was against it," said Jackie Ladd, who has lived there for more than 30 years. "How many jobs would it mean for people here? Not many."

The village board unanimously voted against the proposed $300 million plant, and two weeks later, the company said they'd take their plant — and money — elsewhere.

Deep-rooted, rural agricultural communities around the U.S. are seeking economic investments to keep from shedding residents, but those very places face trade-offs that increasing numbers of those who oppose meat processing plants say threaten to burden their way of life and bring in outsiders.

"Maybe it's just an issue of the times in which we live in which so many people want certain things but they don't want the inconveniences that go with them," said Chris Young, executive director of the American Association of Meat Processors.

Nickerson fought against Georgia-based Lincoln Premium Poultry, which wanted to process 1.6 million chickens a week for warehouse chain Costco. It was a similar story in Turlock, California, which turned down a hog-processing plant last fall, and Port Arthur, Texas, where residents last week stopped a meat processing plant. There also were complaints this month about a huge hog processing plant planned in Mason City, Iowa, but the project has moved ahead.

The Nickerson plant would have helped area farmers, who mostly grow corn and soybeans, start up poultry operations and buy locally grown grain for feed, said Willow Holliback, who lives 40 miles away and heads an agriculture group that backed the proposal.

"When farmers are doing well, the towns are doing well," she said.

The question of who would work the tough jobs was at the forefront of the debate, though many were adamant they aren't anti-immigrant. Opposition leader Randy Ruppert even announced: "This is not about race. This is not about religion."

But both were raised at the raucous April 4 meeting where the local board rejected the plant. One speaker said he'd toured a chicken processing plant elsewhere and felt nervous because most of the workers were minorities.

More overtly, John Wiegert, from nearby Fremont where two meat processors employ many immigrants, questioned whether Nickerson's plant would attract legal immigrants from Somalia — more than 1,000 of whom have moved to other Nebraska cities for similar jobs, along with people from Mexico, Central America and Southeast Asia.

"Being a Christian, I don't want Somalis in here," Wiegert, who has led efforts to deny rental housing to immigrants in the country illegally, told the crowd. "They're of Muslim descent. I'm worried about the type of people this is going to attract."

Others pointed out that, given Nebraska's unemployment rate is among the nation's lowest near 3 percent, few local residents would accept the entry-level jobs. While the projected wage of $13 to $17 an hour was above the region's current median wage for production workers, opponents argued meat processors generally have high turnover.

"We aren't against jobs," farmer John Schauer said. "We want clean, stable jobs."

The land is flat and rich around Nickerson, which is a half-mile off a narrow state highway about 30 miles from Omaha. The town's tidy but often faded single-story homes sit on large, grassy lots. There's a small cluster of commercial buildings, most of them long shuttered, and a grain elevator.

Its school was demolished more than a decade ago, leaving only the old playground, but residents take pride in the regional school district. Superintendent Jeremy Klein told the village board he worried new students would overwhelm local schools and that tax breaks would limit any extra money to hire more teachers.

"It's impossible to know what the size of that impact will be," Klein said days later.

People seem to be more willing than in earlier eras to fight developments they think could harm the environment or change an area's character, University of Nebraska-Lincoln economics professor Eric Thompson said, even if the development offers an economic boost.

Mason City official Brent Trout said he heard all the arguments against the $240 million plant planned some 200 miles northeast of Nickerson: What's the environmental impact of an operation that will process up to 22,000 hogs daily? How will 2,000 new jobs affect the isolated city of 27,500?

It's already hard to attract employers to Mason City, which has lost about 10 percent of its population over the last 30 years, he said. But, like Nickerson, Mason City's best selling point is its focus on agriculture: "This is what Iowa is. This is what Iowa does," Trout said. "We raise pigs and we process pigs."

Although Nickerson residents have succeeded in pushing away the industrial-scale operation, opponents said they're getting better organized to help the town that's targeted next.

"I've lived in exotic places, but I've never wanted to live anywhere but here," said Chuck Folsom, an 88-year-old former Marine and farmer. "We've got to protect the land. We're not making any more of it."
 
Good for them. Everything in life shouldn't be about economic development. There is this little thing called quality of life to consider.
 
why are you anti people doing what they want on their own land?

"People" are doing what they want, they're banding together in a community and telling big-ag to fuck off......

I understand.

I'm for kicking out Yankess and Ca. immigrants from the Ozarks too.......
 
"People" are doing what they want, they're banding together in a community and telling big-ag to $#@! off......

no they're not. They're using the strong arm of the law to prevent their neighbors from utilizing their bought and paid for land.

that's theft.
 
no they're not. They're using the strong arm of the law to prevent their neighbors from utilizing their bought and paid for land.

that's theft.

And in doing so completely change the town and everything about it. Should everyone in that town have to just accept this transformation for one property owner?
 
And in doing so completely change the town and everything about it. Should everyone in that town have to just accept this transformation for one property owner?

YES

. Zoning restricts current landowners based on the local power brokers. In the zoning process, someone gets hurt. Had the farmers of a township wanted to keep the area as farmland, they could have signed restrictive covenants guaranteeing crops instead of homes. Property rights, and the laws that purport to protect those rights, allow individuals to act in their own best interest. Zoning, collective decision-making, use the coercive power of government to restrict usage based on the whims of those in power.

https://mises.org/library/zoning-theft

Zoning is theft.


No different than license, permit, regulation, tax stamp, etc.

Theft: Coercive government violence against free people.
 
Last edited:
no they're not. They're using the strong arm of the law to prevent their neighbors from utilizing their bought and paid for land.

that's theft.

Yes they are.

Neighbors are banding together "as they want" to keep big-ag from purchasing land and developing it...

Put those processing plants in the cities where they belong.
 
Yes they are.

Neighbors are banding together "as they want" to keep big-ag from purchasing land and developing it...

Put those processing plants in the cities where they belong.


If neighbors are "banding together" then they should come up with a fat wod of cash and offer it to the property owner in exchange for a restrictive covenant that states the land will not be used for meat processing.

Put up or shut up.

This is MY property and I'll do what I want with it or sell it to whomever I wish.

Contrary to the alleged necessity of zoning laws, there is ample scope for noncoercive solutions to zoning issues in the context of a free society of private-property ownership and nonaggression. In particular, private ownership of property allows for restrictive covenants to be agreed between the property owner and another party so that the allowable uses of land are limited according to the wishes of the parties. It follows that property owners within a given neighborhood may contractually agree to impose restrictions on themselves with respect to the allowable developments on their land or the allowable uses of their property.
In some cases, restrictive covenants may mimic the kinds of restrictions present in zoning laws and may therefore be used as a means of voluntary zoning. Property owners may agree to limit developments on their land to a certain height as in existing zoning laws; they may agree to paint their properties in a similar color scheme, as with some housing complexes; or they may agree to restrict the use of their property to particular uses, such as residential use.
It is no mystery why private-property owners might voluntarily undertake to restrict their own property rights. They might do so for monetary payment or other valuable consideration.

https://mises.org/library/how-zoning-rules-would-work-free-society
 
Last edited:
wait wut?

when did this board become pro zoning?

Small local government. States rights. You know, Ron Paul kind of stuff. But I do agree that changing the rules after the property was purchased is wrong.
 
does not compute

I don't want government to kick out Yankees and Ca. immigrants, I want government to get out of the way......

Locals can handle things just fine without state and federal interference...
 
Small local government. States rights. You know, Ron Paul kind of stuff.
Just because government is local does not mean it has the right to act coercively through violence.

Ron supports voluntarism. Zoning isn't voluntary.


Show me a quote where Ron Paul promotes local zoning and land use regulations.


Here's a hint: You won't find any.
 
If neighbors are "banding together" then they should come up with a fat wod of cash and offer it to the property owner in exchange for a restrictive covenant that states the land will not be used for meat processing.

Put up or shut up.

This is MY property and I'll do what I want with it or sell it to whomever I wish.

You are assuming a level playing field. 400 peons against Costco with unlimited access to cheap credit. :D
Have you heard of the Federal Reserve?
 
Last edited:
Just because government is local does not mean it has the right to act coercively through violence.

Ron supports voluntarism. Zoning isn't voluntary.


Show me a quote where Ron Paul promotes local zoning and land use regulations.


Here's a hint: You won't find any.

Dude, it's in the Constitution which I've heard Ron Paul talk about a couple of thousand times. All rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government belong to the state. If the state has the right to create zoning laws, then arguably they have the right to delegate that function to local government as well.
 
If neighbors are "banding together" then they should come up with a fat wod of cash and offer it to the property owner in exchange for a restrictive covenant that states the land will not be used for meat processing.

Put up or shut up.

This is MY property and I'll do what I want with it or sell it to whomever I wish.

How do you know the neighbors didn't band together and concoct this plan before big-ag struck their deal?

I don't.....

But it's certainly something I could see farmers doing.

Ol' Smitty tries to sell his family farm for 1-1/2 times going rate to his neighbors and they tell him to get lost so Smitty calls his niece at Tyson and pitches a "deal"...

Now Smitty is butt-hurt and so is Tyson but Smitty is gone and the property is up for sale again at fair market value...

As an added benefit the dregs associated with poultry processing aren't living in the county...
 
Dude, it's in the Constitution which I've heard Ron Paul talk about a couple of thousand times. All rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government belong to the state. If the state has the right to create zoning laws, then arguably they have the right to delegate that function to local government as well.

We often hear from “limited government” types talk of the Tenth Amendment that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” and this is all well and good. Conservatives have long seen the Tenth Amendment as a practical check on the powers of the central government and testament to the founders belief in local democracy.

But it is not enough to simply appeal to the Tenth Amendment.

If liberty loving Americans wish to restore their rights they should look to the much more radical, libertarian Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment protects rights not even listed in the Constitution. It was the founders’ insurance that bureaucrats would not misconstrue the language of the document to deny any individual rights.

Rand Paul explains:
https://joeyclark.liberty.me/rand-paul-speaks-up-for-the-9th-amendment/




We need to defend the entire Bill of Rights. What does the Ninth Amendment say? Most people forget about the Ninth Amendment, but the Ninth Amendment was one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights would have never passed without the Ninth Amendment because many of the critics said, well, if you list certain rights, the people will think that’s all of the rights, and they’ll think that that’s a complete listing. So the people who put the Bill of Rights on the Constitution said we need to make sure they know this is just the beginning. It’s an impartial or incomplete list of your Bill of Rights. So the Ninth Amendment says those rights not listed are not to be disparaged because

your rights come from your Creator and they are unlimited.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top